**CENTER FOR PERFECTION STUDIES:** CONTINUITY•SYMMETRY•HARMONY GOALS.**NOVember.2019**

**HOMEPAGES**: ASSUMPTIONS |DARK|**FORMULAS**|INFINITY|**Map**|KEYS|REVIEW|**Transformation**|**UP**

72 OF 202: GRID of EVERYTHING, EVERYWHERE FOR ALL TIME, **NOT A THEORY OR VISION, JUST MATH**.

# Consider An Alternative

##### By Bruce Camber ___June 2018* ___**PRIOR HOMEPAGE** ____All current work

**Working Premise**. The Big Bang theory is flawed. Its *infinitely-hot, infinitely-dense, infinitely-small* starting point has defied logic and it has impeded the development of a coherent view of the universe. [1] Its weaknesses and failures are well-known, but no clear alternatives emerged until science began to recognize the place and power of the Planck base units. [2]

**A little history**. In 1899 Max Planck began his work to grasp fundamental units of nature based on mathematical constants, essentially ratios-and-relations, and not physical measurements. By 1914 Planck’s work was translated into English and his formulas and numbers were published for a wider audience. [3] In time, these would become known as Planck Length / Planck Time and Planck Mass / Planck Charge. The numbers were so small, the scholarly community considered them to be relatively meaningless until 2001 when Frank Wilczek of MIT began writing about their place and importance within scholarly research. [4] In 2004 when honored with a Nobel Prize in Physics, Wilczek’s earlier articles took on a new stature and soon Planck’s numbers began to be recognized as more than Dirac-like numerology. [5]

By this time within our scholarly history, the Big Bang theory had become firmly entrenched within our commonsense worldviews, especially within our academic community. And, it was also enmeshed with absolute space and time, the work of another University of Cambridge Lucasian professor. Yes, #2 Isaac Newton and #17 Stephen Hawking both left what seem to be indelible marks on our world. Newton’s absolute space time is embedded within our commonsense view of the universe. It is also wrong. So now it is time to begin to try to erase the essence of both.

**Beyond boundaries**. In 2011 to help a nephew I took his high school geometry classes for their last day of school before the holidays (December 19). I had Zeno in mind when we started dividing in half each of the edges of a tetrahedron in order to connect those new vertices. We went deeper and deeper inside a tetrahedral-octahedral couplet (pictured). On paper we went 45 steps inside until we were in the range of the fermion and other particles. Going further, another 67 steps, we entered the range of the Planck numbers.

**The Simple Math**. We were even more surprised when we started with Planck’s numbers, just to watch the doubling of each of those base numbers. [6] In 112 steps we were back up in the classroom. By notation 142 the universe was just approaching one second of processing power. And then, in just 60 more doublings, we were out to the age of the universe and the size of the universe. Simple math indeed, yet it staggers the imagination.

**This website**. Ever since that fateful day with the high school students, questions have been raised and explored. Scholars have told me, “A simple doubling is not a mechanism to create and sustain the universe.” Or, something like this, “It can’t account for all the issues within Big Bang cosmology.” So, every page of this website is a study of their issues. One of those entries outlines four goals to explore, and eight reasons to wrestle with this nascent model.

**Questions**. In 2011 we didn’t know what we had, but we recognized the chart’s qualities for ordering information and decided it was a good STEM tool. Yet we were troubled that the first 60 or so doublings as such from the Planck scale had not been studied or discussed in the academic literature. In fact, the entire continuum from the first doubling to the 202nd doubling had been ignored. It seemed ironic because a lot of attention had been given to Kees Boeke’s 1957 work when he charted a scale of the universe using base-10 notation, all in just 40 steps. [7]

Our doublings, following a form of base-2 notation, are quite different; these doublings come in many guises; and, I believe these address the most presssing issues and open questions within Big Bang cosmology. Those questions beget more questions and these have been pressing this work forward for years:

- What about finite-infinite transformation? Is there such a thing?
- What is space? What is time?What is mass or matter? What is charge or energy?
- Might space and time be relational and not absolute?
- Is there an alternative to Alan Guth’s definition of inflation?
- How do numbers, shapes, and dynamics work together?
- What is the role of our first principles of continuity-symmetry-and-harmony?
- Can we address the nature of quantum fluctuations and imperfections and chaos?
- What about complex, technical mathematics and concepts like period doubling bifurcation?
- Is our universe in fact exponential and does Euler’s identity rule?
- Does the universe have an inherent value component?

Because it is so rich and the scope so large, and because so much of it has been unexplored, many major issues are being studied within this framework of 202 doublings (or notations from the first instant to the current time). Most importantly, this chart will always be current research because here each notation is an active, on-going function that continues to define out universe right now.

Although a nascent outline for a model of the universe, as a model, I obviously believe it is worth our time to study it further. With 48 primes between 1 and 202, there is an abundance of opportunity to introduce *a successive building of mathematical structures* [8] that cohere within the fundamental continuity equation, base-2 doublings.

Possibly a bit too harsh, I believe those who hold onto the *big bang theory* without truly engaging these numbers and geometries of this *quiet expansion*, a mathematically-integrated universe view, are actually being intellectually dishonest.

## Endnotes footnotes and references:

[1] In May 2016 Stephen Hawking hosted a PBS-TV series called *Genius*. He opens the series by asking the question, “Where did the universe come from?” and continues, “The answer, as most people can tell you, is the big bang. Everything in existence, expanding exponentially in every direction, from an ** infinitely small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense point**, creating a cosmos filled with energy and matter. But what does that really mean and where did it all begin?”

[2] Criticism of the big bang theory goes right back to its very beginnings in the 1920s, yet the current crescendo of criticism began to emerge in 1991 with a book by Eric Lerner, *The Big Bang Never Happened: A Startling Refutation of the Dominant Theory of the Origin of the Universe.*

[3] *The Theory of Heat Radiation*, by *Max Planck *(1858-1947); Morton Masius (translator), F. Blakiston Son & Co [c. 1914]

[4] Frank Wilczek, MIT, is a spectacular physicist with a wonderful breadth and depth of research, scholarship and insight. His openness to simplicity and beauty has been most encouraging.

[5] *Dirac-like numerology* summarizes the fear the academic-scholarly community has of stepping outside the bounds and becoming speculative and imaginative. There is so much herd mentality within the academic community, to protect oneself and minimize one’s risk, most work today has multiple authors. In fairness, however, because it is so easy to collaborate with like-minded scholars around the world, it is no longer unusual to have over 100 scholars who have contributed insights to a given piece of work.

[6] Though the chart is totally predictive and just simple math, the numbers are challenging. Interpreting those numbers will take a lifetime of work.

[7] Kees Boeke’s 1957 work, *Cosmic View: The Universe in 40 Jumps*, uses base-10 notation, ostensibly adding or subtracting zeroes.

[8] This next footnote will address “a successive building of mathematical structures.” -BEC. This page was initiated on May 23, 2018. It is just a working draft.

[This is a working page and it is posted to receive preliminary feedback to be updated with as many corrections as possible.]

## Key pages to open questions/insights about the nature of reality:

http://81018.com

http:/81018.com/home

https://81018.com/chart

https://81018.com/goals/

https://81018.com/concepts/

https://81018.com/constant/

https://81018.com/redefinition/

https://81018.com/exponentiation/

https://81018.com/π/

https://81018.com/s4a/

https://81018.com/einstein

https://81018.com/euler/

https://81018.com/prime/

https://81018.com/inertial-frame/

https://81018.com/finite-to-infinite/

https://81018.com/2017/10/16/eight/

## Continued research for this article:

One usually knows when an article is complete. This article is not. It is still shy of being considered a first-draft. Here are just a few of the articles that are being reviewed:

• Uwe C. Täuber, *Critical Dynamics** *(Cambridge University Press, 2014), *Phase Transitions and Scaling in Systems Far From Equilibrium** (*Annu. Rev. Cond. Matter Phys. 2017. 8:1–27 doi: 10.1146/)

• Frank Wilczek, May 2006, *On Absolute Units, III: Absolutely Not?*

• https://physics.info/planck/

• Richard Fitzpatrick, Teaching notes from 2006-03-29

• Reviewing our history: *Physics in the Twentieth Century*, Victor Weisskopf, MIT Press, 1972, 1979

• *The physics of reality: space, time, matter, cosmos* Proceedings of the 8th symposium honoring mathematical physicist Jean-Pierre Vigier, August 2012 Editors, Richard L. Amoroso, Louis H. Kauffman, Peter Rowlands Editor’s note: In 1980 Camber studied with JP Vigier at the L’Institut Henri Poincaré (IHP) in Paris.

* This page was initiated on Monday, May 14, 2018 in the home of the Joanne and Norman Randolph of Huntsville, Alabama. The Randolphs were also my hosts while attending the NASA SpaceApp Challenge back in April 2017. This page was also written for them so they could readily share it with friends and family to explain what their old house guest was attempting to do to explain his disappointment with the big bang theory.

Thanks Joanne & Norm!